An unborn child is an innocent soul. Or do you disagree?

(12-06-2016 09:21 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  An unborn child is an innocent soul. Or do you disagree?

Which means it is not a person.

A person has a soul , well most do with the exception of HRC!

(12-06-2016 09:49 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  A person has a soul , well most do with the exception of HRC!

But not an innocent soul. A person is a sinner.

An unborn child has committed no sin. Period!

People on the political left frequently seem groaningly ignorant about history and politics.

(12-06-2016 10:00 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  An unborn child has committed no sin. Period!

nor crime.

There is a difference between standing up for yourself economically and interfering militarily.

I would think that would be plainly obvious.

(12-06-2016 10:00 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  An unborn child has committed no sin. Period!

While I am pro life my theology disagrees with this statement. Original sin stains us all..

(12-05-2016 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The cons called HRC and every single lib who wanted a "tough on Russia" policy by continuing or increasing the economic sanctions over crimea as a warmonger.

Link please?

I don't remember anything remotely like that. What I recall is liberals blaming everything on Putin and talking about what great buddies he and Trump were and how cons loved Putin


Otherwise, this is just total trolling BS that has no place in this forum

Dumb thread is dumb.

(12-06-2016 10:00 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  An unborn child has committed no sin. Period!

Who knew that God was from South Carolina?

He's not ,.. however, I've heard that he vacations in Virginia!

I believe as well that heaven is in Iowa?

so other than pony no one is willing to make an intelligent attempt to refute this?

refute what? and opinion?

(12-05-2016 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The cons called HRC and every single lib who wanted a "tough on Russia" policy by continuing or increasing the economic sanctions over crimea as a warmonger. yet here we are three weeks later and they are talking about a tough on china policy citing currency manipulation as justification largely to justify his actions with the Taiwan phone call.
I would call this a double standard but honestly I think the cons are too partisan to even admit the existence of one.

One, your question is based on an unestablished and probably false premise.

Two, would not democrats who supported Hillary on Russia but are now attacking Trump on China be equally hypocritical?

Bottom line, either republicans are not hypocrites, or democrats are equally hypocrites. Any attempt to distinguish one party from the other in this regard is dishonest and disingenuous.

(12-07-2016 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The cons called HRC and every single lib who wanted a "tough on Russia" policy by continuing or increasing the economic sanctions over crimea as a warmonger. yet here we are three weeks later and they are talking about a tough on china policy citing currency manipulation as justification largely to justify his actions with the Taiwan phone call.
I would call this a double standard but honestly I think the cons are too partisan to even admit the existence of one.

One, your question is based on an unestablished and probably false premise.

Two, would not democrats who supported Hillary on Russia but are now attacking Trump on China be equally hypocritical?

Bottom line, either republicans are not hypocrites, or democrats are equally hypocrites. Any attempt to distinguish one party from the other in this regard is dishonest and disingenuous.

This.

'ignoring' responses doesn't mean that people haven't responded.

I suspect far more people would agree with what Owl said here than would take the time to '+1' him.